• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Sad story - neighbor shoots dog

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by BabyGoose View Post
    These protesters make me so mad. And they will probably manage to get the law changed, and there will be no protection or recourse for people that lose animals to stray dogs. No longer any incentive to keep dogs confined. There have been many arguments on this board about just how far people could take humane laws, and could they actually take away our use of horses etc. If this ends up changing laws on protecting livestock from roaming dogs, then I am inclined to believe we could actually go down that slippery slope.
    To what? A reality that laws created when the US was 60-90% agricultural might need to evolve? I could live with a world where dog attacks on other pets and on people were given more weight than those on livestock. That's not because I hate farmers or want cows to die, but because only about 2% of Americans are now farmers and frankly, most of the time when people are talking SSS around here, they've not talking about dogs attacking livestock as the term "livestock" was understood in 1899 or 1920, when their state's law was written. Pet horses, hobby flocks of chickens, a couple of mini donkeys -this is not what the laws were intended to protect, and everyone who's so self-righteous on this topic is completely ignoring that. The reason dog attacks on livestock were taken so seriously under the law was that a farmer who lost animals faced losing his farm, and if that happened often enough, it hurt the country. Does that apply to the rabbit owner in this case? No. Does that mean I hate rabbits and think they deserve no protection? No. I'm all for curtailing aggressive and/or roaming dogs. But I don't see how looking into the way 200-year-old laws apply in the current world is somehow a slippery slope.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by vacation1 View Post
      To what? A reality that laws created when the US was 60-90% agricultural might need to evolve? I could live with a world where dog attacks on other pets and on people were given more weight than those on livestock. That's not because I hate farmers or want cows to die, but because only about 2% of Americans are now farmers and frankly, most of the time when people are talking SSS around here, they've not talking about dogs attacking livestock as the term "livestock" was understood in 1899 or 1920, when their state's law was written. Pet horses, hobby flocks of chickens, a couple of mini donkeys -this is not what the laws were intended to protect, and everyone who's so self-righteous on this topic is completely ignoring that. The reason dog attacks on livestock were taken so seriously under the law was that a farmer who lost animals faced losing his farm, and if that happened often enough, it hurt the country. Does that apply to the rabbit owner in this case? No. Does that mean I hate rabbits and think they deserve no protection? No. I'm all for curtailing aggressive and/or roaming dogs. But I don't see how looking into the way 200-year-old laws apply in the current world is somehow a slippery slope.
      Just because I might not make a living with the animal I have to endure somebody else being inconsiderate?
      because only 2% of the population does make a living off the farm, the rest have to suffer? really?
      There would still be a matter of property rights and, oh, public safety....so in essence, it does not matter one lick if there are 2% professional farmers or zero....astray dog with aggressive behavior is bad news.

      I hope you read her post in the farming section!

      Comment


      • There are many states where there are more cattle than people.
        More chickens than people.
        More swine than people.

        The laws protect the majority. Just because the 2% of the people who FEED you don't seem overly important to your insulated world view does not mean laws should change because you see more cats and dogs and non-farmers than you do farmers and food-stock.

        The vast majority of rabbits are kept outdoors. They don't hibernate and survive in the wild without houses.

        Ignorance and elitism should be a painful condition.




        (FWIW, many states also include "other animals" which cover cats and dogs. Not to mention not all livestock are foodstock. Lesson horses, petting zoo animals, therapy animals, breeders' stock, etc...these are also animals that make income for their owners. Farm and livestock have multiple *legal* definitions...for a reason)



        Go tell BabyGoose since her lambs weren't her sole source of income and she didn;t have thousands or supply a major grocery store, then her dead ones killed by dogs today don't count. Or tell Hunterkiddo that since her rooster didn't have Purdue stamped on his butt, he didn;t count either.
        You jump in the saddle,
        Hold onto the bridle!
        Jump in the line!
        ...Belefonte

        Comment


        • Ah yes - here it comes. Rural dwellers are merely serfs who must obey their urban overlords and honor their delicate sensibilities. Because fewer people live in the country their rights, needs, and wants are irrelevant. Good God.

          You know - aggressive dogs don't just kill livestock. A few years back a few of them packed up and killed a woman. You know what? The dogs had a history of attacking small animals but no one did anything.

          The woman's name was Dorothy Sullivan. I suggest you google her name and "dog attack". Then see what happened to the owner of those dogs.

          I can't remember when I've read a more stupid, vacuous, self absorbed elitist post. Some people truly live in bubbles - makes you wonder how they manage to get out the door in the mornings.
          Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
          Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
          -Rudyard Kipling

          Comment


          • Originally posted by vacation1 View Post
            To what? A reality that laws created when the US was 60-90% agricultural might need to evolve? I could live with a world where dog attacks on other pets and on people were given more weight than those on livestock. That's not because I hate farmers or want cows to die, but because only about 2% of Americans are now farmers and frankly, most of the time when people are talking SSS around here, they've not talking about dogs attacking livestock as the term "livestock" was understood in 1899 or 1920, when their state's law was written. Pet horses, hobby flocks of chickens, a couple of mini donkeys -this is not what the laws were intended to protect, and everyone who's so self-righteous on this topic is completely ignoring that. The reason dog attacks on livestock were taken so seriously under the law was that a farmer who lost animals faced losing his farm, and if that happened often enough, it hurt the country. Does that apply to the rabbit owner in this case? No. Does that mean I hate rabbits and think they deserve no protection? No. I'm all for curtailing aggressive and/or roaming dogs. But I don't see how looking into the way 200-year-old laws apply in the current world is somehow a slippery slope.
            I don't give a care that I don't have to make my living off my livestock. So that makes them less important? Pet horses, hobby chickens, a couple of mini donkeys? They are no less important than someones pet dog that they didn't even care enough about to keep it confined. I just came home this afternoon to dead and dying lambs and wounded scared sheep. Their wounds point toward dog attack. One of the lambs was still ALIVE with a 6 x 6 HOLE chewed into it's side! I could see it's rib cage! I don't know how long it layed there today suffering before we got home to put it out of it's misery. The other sheep have patches of wool pulled out of their backs and sides. One has bloody wounds that will require vet attention. It shouldn't matter that I won't "lose the farm" over those dead lambs. I shouldn't have to worry about some idiots loose dogs tearing MY animals apart, and I sure as heck am going to defend them, with deadly force if neccessary. Sorry if that offends you. I have mini horses. Are they next to be attacked? I love my animals. Don't belittle that because we no longer have "real farms" anymore. Sheesh!

            Comment


            • Luckily the laws apply to all "stock" be it one sheep or 3,000, a champion horse or a backyard pet. In addition more and more dangerous dog laws (not breed specific) include animals that attack/bite ANY animal, pet or livestock, as well as people. I only have/had 1-2 goats but when they were attacked I was ready to kill that dog had it not gotten away. And I promised the owner that there would be not second chances. I never saw that one again! That was over 10 years ago now and the remaining goat is STILL petrified of strange dogs on the horizon.
              Every mighty oak was once a nut that stood its ground.

              Proud Closet Canterer! Member Riders with Fibromyalgia clique.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by vacation1 View Post
                Oh, please. You overreacted in your initial response to my opinion re: the dog, implied I had a secret rabbit-hating agenda, and when I pointed out your rather aggressive misunderstanding, you switch tactics to pretend that you've been calm and reasonable all along. Whatever. Go shoot some puppies*.

                *See, it's wrong to imply that others are monsters, just because they disagree with you!
                Feel better now?

                I may have quoted one of your posts (I don't remember to be honest and I don't feel like checking) to make a point but it wasn't an attack on you per se.
                It was to make a point I felt needed to be made.

                Don't flatter yourself.
                *Wendy* 4.17.73 - 12.20.05

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BabyGoose View Post
                  I don't give a care that I don't have to make my living off my livestock. So that makes them less important? Pet horses, hobby chickens, a couple of mini donkeys? They are no less important than someones pet dog that they didn't even care enough about to keep it confined. I just came home this afternoon to dead and dying lambs and wounded scared sheep. Their wounds point toward dog attack. One of the lambs was still ALIVE with a 6 x 6 HOLE chewed into it's side! I could see it's rib cage! I don't know how long it layed there today suffering before we got home to put it out of it's misery. The other sheep have patches of wool pulled out of their backs and sides. One has bloody wounds that will require vet attention. It shouldn't matter that I won't "lose the farm" over those dead lambs. I shouldn't have to worry about some idiots loose dogs tearing MY animals apart, and I sure as heck am going to defend them, with deadly force if neccessary. Sorry if that offends you. I have mini horses. Are they next to be attacked? I love my animals. Don't belittle that because we no longer have "real farms" anymore. Sheesh!
                  Oh, wow. That must have been absolutely horrible to see. So sorry for your loss and that you are going through this, BabyGoose.
                  *Wendy* 4.17.73 - 12.20.05

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
                    You're assuming the reporting is accurate. It's been my experience, first hand, that quite often it's not. Accurate.
                    Propaganda to rile people up about not exactly the most earth shaking things. Wars in the Middle East, Obama using US military force in yet again another country that Congress has not declared war on (Somalia), but a DOG ATTACKS A RABBIT or not. Hell yes!
                    "We, too, will be remembered not for victories or defeats in battle or in politics, but for our contribution to the human spirit." JFK

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Calamber View Post
                      Propaganda to rile people up about not exactly the most earth shaking things. Wars in the Middle East, Obama using US military force in yet again another country that Congress has not declared war on (Somalia), but a DOG ATTACKS A RABBIT or not. Hell yes!
                      I wasn't commenting on propaganda, I was commenting on the poor quality of what passes for journalism. For instance, I was interviewed for an industry specific magazine. The "journalist" didn't bother to even report accurately what my responses were to her questions. I believe it was just pure laziness, not a hidden agenda.

                      Comment


                      • BabyGoose, I am so sorry you had to deal with that. I lost a much loved goat to pneumonia yesterday. That was very hard. I can't even imagine how much harder to come home to what you did.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by vacation1 View Post
                          To what? A reality that laws created when the US was 60-90% agricultural might need to evolve? I could live with a world where dog attacks on other pets and on people were given more weight than those on livestock. That's not because I hate farmers or want cows to die, but because only about 2% of Americans are now farmers and frankly, most of the time when people are talking SSS around here, they've not talking about dogs attacking livestock as the term "livestock" was understood in 1899 or 1920, when their state's law was written. Pet horses, hobby flocks of chickens, a couple of mini donkeys -this is not what the laws were intended to protect, and everyone who's so self-righteous on this topic is completely ignoring that. The reason dog attacks on livestock were taken so seriously under the law was that a farmer who lost animals faced losing his farm, and if that happened often enough, it hurt the country. Does that apply to the rabbit owner in this case? No. Does that mean I hate rabbits and think they deserve no protection? No. I'm all for curtailing aggressive and/or roaming dogs. But I don't see how looking into the way 200-year-old laws apply in the current world is somehow a slippery slope.
                          The sheer lack of logical argument in the above post is epic.
                          Does this mean we should go for an open season on the pets of old white men because they're becoming a minority? Clearly, their rights shouldn't matter; there are so few of them left.

                          I've dealt with livestock killed and maimed by dogs on working farms and on hobby farms.
                          It doesn't matter which is which, the animals still suffered because some thoughtless asshat of an owner couldn't be bothered to care for their allegedly beloved pet as well as the livestock killed were cared for by their owners.
                          "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

                          ...just settin' on the Group W bench.

                          Comment


                          • I guess I think of it as a rights issue. You get to have your rights until they tread on mine.

                            Your dog going after my livestock? Sorry. I will employ every method I can think of to remedy before shooting an animal attacking livestock, children, whatever. But at some point, your rights cannot infringe on mine.

                            I love my dogs. But if (God forbid) they got loose and were doing something nefarious on someone else's property, I would consider them fair game.
                            A good horseman doesn't have to tell anyone...the horse already knows.

                            Might be a reason, never an excuse...

                            Comment


                            • I can not figure out your reasoning Vacation1. The age of a law has nothing to do with it's appropriateness, the first amendment though allows you to express ithat thought.

                              I went to a political BB and a Coth thread broke out

                              Comment


                              • Still at it, aren't you all. Never are we going to agree.I still believe that guns provide a quick and easy answer to solving a problem. Many of you believe it's within your rights to use the weapon when you see fit. I'll agree with you if it's a human being attacked,but for the vast majority of cases, I don't believe a weapon is the sole answer. Are you going to shoot every predator ( dogs, coyotes, wolves, fishers, weasels, mink, eagles, hawks, great blue herons etc)? Humans are the most powerful predator of all. Are you going to shoot some kid in your fields chasing one of your critters?
                                Rights are a 2 way street at least in some places in the country. And some of us do live in neighborhoods and dogs, cats, kids run around and cause trouble. A loose dog, even attacking chickens or rabbits, is nothing compared to a drug selling neighbor. And even in the last situation, just because something is within your rights, doesn't mean the exercising of your rights is the wisest course of action.Sometimes it pays to think first and react second.

                                Comment


                                • Yes, actually, I think most of us WOULD shoot ANY predator as needed. If a person was attacking my family or my stock they'd be treated like a dog doing the same. It's not going to work here. Sorry. I can't think of a reason NOT to shoot any creature harming mine.
                                  A good horseman doesn't have to tell anyone...the horse already knows.

                                  Might be a reason, never an excuse...

                                  Comment


                                  • Your family, sure be it a dog or human. But you're going to shoot a human for attacking your livestock? Most of you defend hunters who shoot the wrong thing. Are you going to shoot them too, if they shoot your horse? Just curious how far this goes.
                                    "Won't work here". Doesn't have too. You live your life and I 'll live mine but don't expect me to applaud your choice anymore than you approve of mine.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by BuddyRoo View Post
                                      Yes, actually, I think most of us WOULD shoot ANY predator as needed. If a person was attacking my family or my stock they'd be treated like a dog doing the same. It's not going to work here. Sorry. I can't think of a reason NOT to shoot any creature harming mine.
                                      It' called a $10,000. Fine for shooting a great blue heron who just ate all your expensive koi or a bald eagle who decided your chicken or dog looked pretty tasty,among other things. Not even getting into shooting the kid for hurting your livestock.
                                      ,
                                      ,

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by BuddyRoo View Post
                                        Yes, actually, I think most of us WOULD shoot ANY predator as needed. If a person was attacking my family or my stock they'd be treated like a dog doing the same. It's not going to work here. Sorry. I can't think of a reason NOT to shoot any creature harming mine.
                                        While I probably would not have shot the dog from this scenario (our own dogs have killed a few of our chickens over the years) I do support the guy in NH's right to do so. And where I live we do have a gun we can access quickly for coyotes, porcupines, etc that might wish to harm our critters. We found claw marks last year when something harassed my gelding enough in the middle of the night that he ran through three board fence to get away.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by BuddyRoo View Post
                                          Yes, actually, I think most of us WOULD shoot ANY predator as needed. If a person was attacking my family or my stock they'd be treated like a dog doing the same. It's not going to work here. Sorry. I can't think of a reason NOT to shoot any creature harming mine.
                                          You can't shoot an eagle though. And yes, I would shoot them all too. And I'm for draconian gun laws. So there.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X